Nathan Cullen

[An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members are making some insensitive jokes about the issue that we are facing here tonight. One thing my friend said that I want to take umbrage with—

[An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can tolerate quite a bit. Canadians are actually generally becoming more and more open to different political philosophies. We are seeing families no longer wedded to single partes forevermore. They move around and consider different things. However, the thing that drives them crazy is when someone stands up and says, “vote for me, I'm going to be different”, which is what the Prime Minister, I would say, very effectively argued in the last election, both in form and substance, about those things my friend pointed out.

He said, “Trust me, I'll get a pipeline to the coast.” No, he bought one. He did not promise that, but he bought an old one.

It was, “Trust me, I'm going to stand up for labour rights no matter what.” We see that the way this came to pass fundamentally eroded that promise made to working people. He said we needed the bargaining tables to work out. For that to be true and to actually be executed, the bargaining tables have to be allowed to do what they need to do without the interference we see here today by the government.

[An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services, November 23rd, 2018]

As someone also from our east coast, Mr. Speaker, I thought you would have had more sympathy for my friend that getting to the point sometimes is more of a process than it is a product.

First of all, the process the Liberals are using in terms of forcing this legislation is actually worse than what Harper did, because there was no limit on debate in the 2011 vote. The debate allowed participation by all members. The Liberals are not allowing that. That is beyond dispute. That is a fact.

In terms of the actual conditions of the bill, my concern is that there already was a mediator appointed to this process. That failed. I thought it was twice, but maybe it was three different times. If the sides are not equal, and one side feels like the government is putting its finger on the scale and prefers one side over the other, the incentive to negotiate and make those difficult concessions from both sides is greatly diminished. That has been our concern.

When the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour went out two and a half weeks ago and said she was prepared to do what we are doing here today, that tipped the scales. That dramatically reduced the incentive for the employer in this case to give up anything. That is how negotiations work. If I know there is an outcome I prefer that is already prepared, why would I bother going through the difficult process of making concessions ahead of time? That has been our struggle with this. As soon as that indication was made, the chances of that negotiating table working out were greatly diminished to the point of nothing.

[An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure to split my time with my good friend from Saskatoon West this evening.

It is a remarkable debate for me to attend and listen to the arguments being put forward by the Liberals and hearing my Conservative colleagues talk about the past experience over the same issue. It is Groundhog Day again. Mr. Speaker, I believe you were with us here in the chamber as well the last time this happened, when Canada Post workers were forced back to work by the Parliament of Canada. It is a pretty heavy force. If one is a worker or a union, it is the Parliament of Canada that can intervene, with all these powerful people and the Prime Minister invoking a contract or invoking a path forward.

In the last government, let us face it, the Conservatives and Mr. Harper were not elected primarily on their strong defence of union rights in Canada or the notion of collective bargaining. They did not campaign on it, they did not promise it and they did not really do much about supporting collective rights in Canada for working people. After the 2015 election, we could understand why working people and the labour movement were quite encouraged, because they had so much encouragement from the then candidate, now Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, that if the Liberals got in things would be dramatically different. On the surface, Harper versus the Liberal leader sure looked and sounded different. However, what is important to understand is how it affects people's lives.

Let us go back to what happened to Canada Post workers before. They were in the midst of negotiations and the government of the day, the Harper government, let it be known to management that it was prepared to move back-to-work legislation forward through the House of Commons to essentially impose a contract. As has been said a few times in this chamber, the then government allowed Parliament to talk about it without invoking closure on the debate itself, which unfortunately the Liberals have done. Moving forward, Canada Post workers and workers in general would have thought that the Liberals were not going to do the same thing. However, they did exactly the same thing just a few weeks ago. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour got up publicly and said they were prepared to do whatever it takes, including all options on the table, including what we see here tonight, which is to force a position on the working people, removing all incentive from the employer to bargain.

Let us look at that for a moment. When that incentive is removed, when the employer knows that the government is going to invoke back-to-work legislation, the possibility of what we call free and fair collective bargaining is gone. There is no incentive anymore for the employer to work out the things that it needs to work out with its employees.

When we go back to what happened in 2011, a contract was imposed. It turned out that the contract, and the process that was used, was unconstitutional and thrown out of court. That took four years. Therefore, Canada Post workers were very much looking forward to this round of negotiations, because the last round went so sideways, to work out some of the significant problems they had with their contract, the one that had been imposed on them.

One of the significant pieces we have been hearing from postal workers in our riding, and I hope the Liberal members have been listening to this, is around health and safety. Canada Post workers, carriers in particular, are experiencing five times the injury rate of other federally regulated workers. Everybody wants a good postal service for our small businesses, for families sending letters back and forth and with Christmas coming. One of the ways to have a good postal service is to make sure your workers are not being injured at a rate five times higher than the equivalent. Would that not be a good thing to negotiate at the table, to fix after it has not been fixed for the last seven years?

The Liberals indicated to the management at Canada Post, “Don't worry, guys, we've got your back. You don't have to figure out how to make working conditions better. You don't have to figure out how to make sure that people aren't forced into mandatory overtime and late-night deliveries in the middle of winter that they simply can't say no to without being suspended or potentially fired.” We should collectively as a Parliament care about all those things. What is amazing is this. It must have been in the Liberals' notes, because each one rose to give their speech and said, “I regret this”, “I feel regret.” It was repeated over and over again. Maybe they all spontaneously had the exact same motion. I am going to suspect they were told that they had to say these two things, that they have great regret and that they support collective bargaining. It is a strange thing to say, “I support collective bargaining”, in the middle of a debate in which collective bargaining is being removed.

It is a bit ironic, maybe contradictory. The process we are under right now is the nuclear option for Parliament, that once the bill itself comes forward, there is no room for debate anymore.

The clock starts and the clock is over. This evening, this House will introduce a law, and two and a half, three hours later will have passed the law at first, second and third reading, and will have passed it out of this place.

It is incredibly rare that that ever happens, and the only time I have ever seen it happen properly is when the entire House agrees. In this case, that is clearly not true. What the Liberals are doing is imposing the nuclear option of shutting down every stage of debate, ordering the House to go through the stages without any discussion. That prohibits us from doing our central job, which is to hear from each other, debate the issues and maybe, shockingly, have our minds changed by what we hear.

However, the process that the Liberals have laid out makes Parliament's job impossible. It is impossible for us to do what we are supposed to do on behalf of the people who sent us here, which is to, consciously and with the best available intelligence we have, understand the issues facing the country, debate them, listen to the other side and come to some form of resolution.

This is the opposite of what is happening here tonight. The Liberals have said, “We will impose the will of a majority government. We will impose our will upon this place, and thereby impose our will upon the 40,000 or 50,000 workers at Canada Post.”

Unions have been taking a beating, in terms of reputation over the last several years, maybe even further back. It is important to recognize what has been accomplished, that some of the fights that unions and working people have engaged in have not benefited just unions but have benefited all working Canadians.

The idea of a proper length of working week, the idea of maternity leave, the idea of employment insurance and the idea of some sort of social safety net for when people fall on hard times, much of that was fought for with blood, sweat and tears by the labour movement. It is not just opportunities that only people associated with the labour community enjoy, but all working Canadians can now enjoy.

Rights are not one of these things that we get to win once; we have keep winning them over and over again. One of the rights that was fought for and constitutionally protected is the right to negotiate, the right to engage with employers over working conditions, salary, overtime, the safety that happens at work, the ability to not be fired because of a complaint or the raising of a concern, to not be fired because a boss sexually harasses someone and they resisted. All of those rights are fought for and won at the table where there is negotiation, where a little is given and a little is taken.

The union attempted to do that here, and it was undermined. I use that word very specifically. If we listen to the Liberals, they talk about this sudden crisis that is just crushing the Canadian economy and about how this rotating strike was threatening Canada's reputation as a trading nation, about how it is all crumbling down with a five-week partially rotating strike on communities, where the backlog that has been reported will take two days to clear up.

My goodness, what an economic crisis that the government must be seized with. It must shut down debate in Parliament and force the union back into a position where it has virtually no power. That is the crisis.

I heard the Minister of Labour say yesterday that people's welfare cheques and employment insurance cheques were being held up because of this crisis. Then we find out that the union had actually gone to management and said, “Let us make sure that these important cheques get to people who need them.” Management said, “No. Oh no, no, let us hold those back.” It did this because it needed to manufacture that sense of crisis that working and poor Canadians would not get critical money they needed to stay alive.

That was manufactured, and the Liberals bought into it. They cannot have their eyes closed to this. They are not stupid. They know this is going on right now.

What is frustrating for me is that in the state of politics in the world today, cynicism grows quickly. One of the things that working people felt they had with the government was an ally. The government did some things on some legislation that revoked what the Harper administration had done. Let us give credit where credit is due.

However, when push came to shove, rather than saying to the management at Canada Post, “Sit down. Negotiate a fair wage and safe working conditions, so we have the best postal service for all Canadians to enjoy”, rather than do that, the Liberals gave them the wink and the nod and said, “Do not worry. You do not have to negotiate, you do not have to move forward. Just like in the past, we have a bill ready that will simply invoke a process upon the union, and management will not have to negotiate.”

This is a constitutionally protected right. This legislation that the Liberals are moving through will be challenged, and I believed successfully challenged, in court. It is a shame that it has come to this under the government.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully all of the MPs in this place know the stories of Canada Post workers who go above and beyond simply delivering the mail, who go above and beyond what their duty calls upon them to do to make sure that people, such as those Canadians living with disabilities whom my friend talked about, get access to all sorts of extra help that is not required in the collecting bargaining unit or agreement.

Our frustration as New Democrats is very similar to what my friend just said. The Liberals came in, riding on a promise to change the perspective on labour relations. I have heard Liberal after Liberal get up in this place and say they believe in good-faith negotiations, yet two weeks ago before negotiations had come to a head, the Liberals indicated that this day was coming and they were going to impose a contract upon the union. What does that tell the employer? It says that they do not have to negotiate anymore because the government is waiting with this piece of legislation.

I do not know if members have all read this. This legislation is under the most prescriptive terms I have ever seen. There is no ability to move the needle at all, in terms of pushing back against what the government is trying to do. All of it is prescribed, time ordered and forced through on the government's own agenda, despite the notion from the Liberals that they are going to treat labour with respect.

In the past, the Conservatives came in without a lot of promises to look favourably upon organized labour in this country. It certainly was not their voter base, but the Liberals are different. That is how the Conservatives operated. One of the first things the Harper government did was to support a Canada Post lockout and then impose a contract.

Union members were waiting for this opportunity to negotiate, maybe with a government that believed in negotiation. However, it does not.

Here is what I say to my friend who is focusing on services to Canadians, which we are all focused on. If we want that service to be of the highest and best quality, workers need to be able to go to work. What we have been told is that the conditions under which Canada Post workers have been working under the last five years have led to an injury rate that is five times higher than other federally regulated businesses. The nature of the business has changed. There are far fewer letters and far more parcels. The packages have gotten heavier and bigger, and in a rural constituency like mine, it is predominately women who are the carriers and they are working mandatory hours way beyond what their contract requires. That is where the injuries come from.

If the Liberals are actually interested in solving these things to bring us to the best level of service, then would the negotiating table not be the best place to figure these things out, so that workers can go to work safely, come home safely and we can all get the services that we are looking for?

[Ethics, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, here is a story. Imagine if we hired somebody, then after a while they said they were quitting, but then eight months later find out they are still taking a salary without having done a day's worth of work. Well, that is exactly what the MP for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has done.

What kind of prime minister would condone this kind of behaviour? Can the Liberals not understand that it is exactly this sense of entitlement that drives Canadians crazy?

Will the Liberals join us in calling for an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner into this deplorable action, yes or not?

[Natural Resources, November 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have quick question for the pipeline-owning Prime Minister. How is that sale going on the $4.5 billion gem of an oil pipeline he picked up? What, no buyers? Is that why he is rushing the sale, to sell off an asset that Canadians spent $500 million in 2018 to build? Well, it is good the government is offering 5% to local first nations.

Two critical questions remain. Given what just happened to Rona workers, will the Prime Minister guarantee that not a single worker will lose their job at Ridley Terminals? Will he also promise that no foreign government will be allowed to buy this strategic asset?

[Parliamentarians of the Year Awards, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last night, MPs and staff gathered together at the Maclean's, L'Actualité, Parliamentarians of the Year awards.

In a rare and refreshing spirit of bipartisanship, we celebrated MPs from northern Saskatchewan to Quebec City, from Chicoutimi to Toronto, from Nepean to Burnaby, who do us all proud. However, I rise today to pay special tribute to our friend Paul Dewar who deservedly won the Lifetime Achievement Award.

After learning of the devastating news of Paul's cancer diagnosis, letters poured in from across the country. One person wrote “This is a story of a life well lived because it was done in community”. His longtime friend, Kiavash Najafi, recently said that Paul is a man who cannot be stopped in pursuit of a better world, and we see this on brilliant display with Paul's Youth Action Now initiative.

In his gracious and moving acceptance speech last night, Paul urged all of us to talk to one another with curiosity and compassion, and to find that space in between.

To Julia, Nathaniel and Jordan, enjoy these precious moments. To Paul, we are thankful for your sharing with us and all Canadians a life that continues to be very well lived.

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, that is interesting coming from the party that said it would have small deficits for a short period of time. It is interesting because it is also coming from a party that just spent $4.5 billion on a 65-year-old pipeline, albeit I forget where that promise was in their platform. I will look for the documentation. Maybe it was there, but I suspect it was not. If my friend would like to go through the 2015 election cycle again and check promises again, fine.

All we are looking to do here today is something positive. I would remind my Liberal friends that we are doing something together. Is that not nice? Does that not feel good? Would it not feel good if we could go and look veterans in the eyes and say we are not going to have this lapsed spending circus anymore? We are not going to do this offensive practice of budgeting this much—wink, wink, nod, nod, and “Don't worry, we're going to claw a whole bunch of it back”. That is what Veterans Affairs has been doing for over a decade. We are going to stop it, together.

As for cheap shots trying to re-run the last election, I will let them do that. What I want to do is to focus on moving this thing forward, as my friend from Courtenay—Alberni has done today. Is that not a nice thing? Let us all celebrate that.

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, as tempted as I am to reveal the New Democrat's platform for the 2019 election to everyone here today, that would require us to have that platform right now. Similarly, no other party now knows what they will be offering Canadians come the next election.

It is always tempting to take shots. I have taken my fair share. If we can agree to the principle that we have here today, that the money that Veterans Affairs is unable, unwilling, or whatever the case may be, to get out the door to our veterans can no longer serve as an excuse for the department somehow clawing back that money, we can change the behaviour. We can only change the behaviour if we change the rules. One of the rules that we aim to change here today is to allow no more lapsed spending and no more lack of service provision to create extra money at the end of the year. That is the way it is done. If we change that rule, we can change the lives of veterans. That is what we all want to do. We want a veteran to pick up the phone or to go into one of those offices and receive the services we promised them. That seems like a worthwhile cause. We can all go to our veterans ceremonies, not just on November 11, but every day of the year and say that we did something together. I think that is all that vets and their families are looking for.